From the Washington Post, an informative article on how Bush lowers expectations so that he seems better when they're met. It also details how he can retroactively lower the expectations, as with the case of the WMDs not being found. Interesting in how malleable it proves the American public to be.
From the Washington Post again, Iraqi exiles are not going to be given political positions after all. Summarized, they're going to be put into an advising council instead of positions, which has left them pretty bitter about it. The US's reasoning for this is that they are "amateur hour" who won't appoint a "representative group" and that the US now has broad ruling rights given it by the UN. It is assumed the US will be ruling Iraq for at least two more years, oh and we're sending in more military to take a policing role. Now, these *might* be reasonable assertions (if I trusted anything anymore), but it's also a great excuse for a Military dictatorship.
Isn't that what we were supposedly ousting? Oh wait, it was the non-existant WMDs. No, wait, it was the humanitarian relief of Saddam's atrocities (and on that note, I'll point to this article from the SF Chronicle, where Iraqis are dying from radiation poisoning, but the IEAE is not allowed to look at them, and no doctors are being sent in to help them). We're running out of excuses here. What expectation will we have minimalized next?
In other news, can someone explain how a grand restructuring of the Department of Defense, giving management more authority, Unions less authority, and subjectively assessed merit-based pay rewards/punishments will "better defend against Terrorism"? See what I mean here.
I'm serious, how does removing the reliable pay-raises and introducing potential pay-cuts equate this line?
"In an age when terrorists move information at the speed of an e-mail and money at the speed of a wire transfer, and fly around in commercial jetliners, we still do have bureaucratic processes of the industrial age as opposed to the information age," Rumsfeld told Collins's committee last week.
I'd thought the biggest reason people went into government work was for the stability and job security. If we're removing that, what's the incentive? I think I'm inclined to agree with this assessment:
"It's trying to take advantage, on this and so many other issues, of the national security argument being the rationale for moving everything quickly without careful consideration," Hoyer said.
And in the final note, the New York Times reported last week that we're looking at deporting 13,000 Arabs. Yes, it seems they were illegal immigrants, but there is a note about how it's effecting the communities. As in, they're packing up and leaving.
I wonder if we'll see another significant increase in the population of Canada.